BRITAIN'S REARMAMENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22583, 23 November 1936, Page 12

BRITAIN'S REARMAMENT

Sir, —Britain's recent decision to increase her defence forces, so as to place her in a position of security, was forced upon her by the enormously increased armaments of every other big Power. This necessity was so evident that the recent Trade Union Congress recognised it. Wo have among us citizens who invariably argue that our country is wrong. To-day these people protest against Britain's tardy decision to rearm, because (so they assert) she did not make any reduction; they even refuse to admit that she tried to bring about disarmament. As far back as January, 1930, Mr. Hamsny MacDonaid, Socialist Prime Minister, broadcast "we are the only nation among leading Powers who can show a continuous reduction in armaments. We cannot go much further ahead alone: indeed if we cannot get an agreement, we may he forced to expand." Mr. Tom Shaw, Socialist Minister for War, said in March, 1931, " I believed 10 years ago that, provided somebody set an example, that example would be followed. Wo definitely did so, but the result did not come—it is a beautiful theory that ought to work out but does not." To deny reduction of armaments by Britain is to ignore facts. The following shows the position of the Navy;—ln 1914 and 19:5.1 capital ships reduced from 69 to 15, cruisers from 105 to 50, torpedo destroyers from 322 to 118, submarines from "4 to 48. In the army, nine cavalry regiments, 27 battalions of infantry, 61 batteries of nrtillery and 21 companies of engineers were disbanded and territorials were reduced from 313,000 to 170,000. in the air Britain fell from tho first air force in the world to fifth or sixth place. These figures were officially stated in the House of Commons in October, 1935, and should carry more weight than mere assertion of those citizens who never willingly give their country any credit. If.Z. W ELrABE League.